Before we discuss the ramifications to society of the passing of the so-called same-sex marriage legislation, it is important to first understand how this legislation came about. This is relevant because the same process will be followed in further efforts by homosexual activists to achieve more advantages and rights in Canada.


Homosexual activists began a cultural war in 1990 to gain social and legal acceptance in our society. The objective of this cultural war was to integrate homosexuality into the mainstream and to silence opposition, so that homosexuality would not be regarded as a moral behavioural choice, but as a reasonable and accepted human right. In this undertaking, the activists have been stunningly successful.

(a) Thousands of Years of Moral Law Have been Overthrown by Activists

The spectacular success of the homosexual movement to win this cultural war is evidenced by the fact that in less than two decades homosexuality has moved from “the love that dares not speak its name” to become today, an accepted part of public life. In achieving this, thousands of years of moral law have been overturned. A recent example of how successful this cultural war has been is that the openly homosexual Ontario Minister of Health, George Smitherman, felt comfortable publicly calling on homosexual physicians to settle inOntariowhere their sexuality would be respected, and also demanding that the health care system adapt itself to the special needs of the homosexual community.

This major cultural change inCanadawas achieved by a plan of action conceived by two homosexual men – both graduates of Harvard, Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuro-psychiatry and Hunter Madsen, a public relations consultant. They attended a meeting in February, 1988 inWarrington,Virginia, attended by 175 of the leadingUShomosexual activists in which they set out their plan to establish a new homosexual agenda. This plan formed the basis of their book, After the Ball – How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, published in 1989 by Penguin Books. Their plan, simply put, called for homosexuals to repackage themselves, not as a promiscuous sexual minority, which they still remain, but as mainstream and an important, integral part of society.

To accomplish this, the authors of the book insisted that homosexuals must hide from public view their sexual acts, promiscuity, virulent pathologies, histrionics and narcissistic behaviour (the authors words). Instead, homosexuals would, under the new imagery, be portrayed as victims, in need of protection so that straights would be inclined, by reflex, to adopt the role of protector towards them.

Henceforth, all public presentations on homosexuals would show them to be just like everyone else, as mere conventional young people, middle aged women and older individuals of all races, demanding equal treatment, and include as well, depictions of “normal” parents and straight friends who unconditionally accept homosexuality. As a result, in order to mainstream the homosexual image, pictures of mustachioed leather

men, drag queens, sexual exhibitionists or masculine women were to be hidden from public view for the time being, until such time as homosexuality had been mainstreamed.

Homosexual activists were also advised to “muddy the moral waters” so as to undercut religious opposition to homosexuality. This was to be achieved by depicting those who resist the acceptance of homosexuals on religious grounds as backward, repressive, hateful, and intolerant individuals, out of step with liberty and self-fulfillment. Opponents of the homosexual agenda were to be shown as proponents of hatred and intolerance, rather than as what they really are — individuals acting on their genuine beliefs, based on theological and moral principles. In short, those who oppose the normalization of homosexuals were to be presented as dangerous, narrow-minded, bigoted people, to be treated with ridicule and contempt.

Fifteen years after the publication of After the Ball, the success of the homosexuals’ plan of action has become readily apparent. It is important to note that the same process of portraying homosexuals as a victimized minority legitimately deserving human rights protection is currently being applied to obtain further rights in the homosexual journey to overtake society’s resistance to their behaviour.


Despite the success of the intense public relations campaign to change Canadians’ perception of homosexuality, it was essential to provide legal and political back-up to ensure that this cultural change had the force of law.

This was easily accomplished inCanada, where, unfortunately, there is a seedy intertwining of our judicial and political system. This legal/political partnership has enabled a mere handful of individuals to force same-sex marriage on the entire country, against its will – all in the name of fairness and equality rights.

(a) Political War

In this endeavor, the current Liberal government inOttawahas been more than a willing partner. The Liberals set about assisting and enhancing the cultural war by first passing incremental legislation, building up finally to the same-sex marriage bill. For example, in 1996, the then Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, amended the federal Human Rights Act to provide protection on the grounds of sexual orientation, which positioned homosexuals as an identifiable victim group requiring human rights protection.

This protection had already been included in the provincial Human Rights Acts, beginning with theprovinceofQuebecin 1977. By 1999, onlyAlbertadid not include sexual orientation protection in its human rights legislation. This was remedied by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision in the Vriend case in 1999, which forcedAlbertato amend its human rights legislation to provide this protection.

The federal government next moved to widen homosexual rights by its same-sex benefits legislation in 1999 to provide same-sex couples with all the family benefits given opposite-sex married couples. Finally, in 2004, the federal government introduced Bill C-38 – the so-called same-sex marriage bill, which was passed into law. All the legislation was accomplished by way of Parliamentary tricks and anti-democratic

measures which are too numerous and complex to enumerate in this paper. Suffice it to say, the Liberals controlled the agenda, their caucus, and the votes in the passing of this legislation by frequently using unethical methods to do so.

The argument used by the government in introducing this legislation was that it had no choice because of the Charter of Rights, as interpreted by the courts. In short, the homosexual agenda was achieved by the intertwining of the political process with that of the judicial process. The two institutions were unwavering in their determination to force the demands of the homosexual activists on the country.

Politicization of the Judiciary

It is not too bold to state that judicial appointments inCanadahave been put up for sale by successive governments, by Prime Ministers, and Justice Ministers, both Liberal and Conservative – depending on which is in power. The appointment of judges inCanadais a squalid and reprehensible affair since these appointments are used as “pay back” for contributions to their respective political parties. The most recent scandal about the appointment system occurred in the Gomery Hearings, which disclosed that 8 of the 10Quebeclawyers, who worked in various capacities for the Liberal party inQuebecduring the 2000 federal election, were given judicial appointments after that election.

It was also learned that 13 other Quebec judges, appointed since the 2000 federal election, had all donated money exclusively to the federal Liberal Party in the years immediately preceding their appointments.

However, these practices were not limited to theprovinceofQuebec. According to the Ottawa Citizen (May 6, 2005), more than 60% of the 93 lawyers who received judicial appointments in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, after the 2000 federal election, had donated funds exclusively to the Liberal Party in the 3 to 5 year period prior to securing their appointments.

For those of you who may believe I am too critical about judicial appointments, I would like to bring to your attention the following:

Prime Minister Martin and his Minister of Justice Irwin Cotler have been in power for less than two years. During this time, the following individuals have been given judicial appointments.

  • Michael Brown, Mr. Cotler’s executive assistant and policy advisor,
  • Yves de Montigy, Mr. Cotler’s Chief of Staff,
  • Randall Echlin, the Legal Counsel to theOntarioLiberal Party,
  • Rosalie Abella, appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. She is wife of Mr. Cotler’s friend, Irving Abella. Both Mr. Cotler and Mr. Abella are former Presidents of the Canadian Jewish Congress,
  • Marsha Erb, Alberta Liberal fundraiser, is a close personal friend of Cotler’s Cabinet colleague, Anne McLellan;
  • John J. Gill, was Co-chair of the 2004Albertafederal Liberal campaign,
  • Vital Ouellette, an unsuccessfulAlbertaprovincial Liberal candidate in 1997 and 2000 elections,

Bryan Mahoney, Liberal candidate who lost twice to federal Conservative

  • MP Myron Thompson,
  • Edmond Blanchard, former Liberal New Brunswick Minister of Finance.

The list goes on.

Because of this prejudicial appointment process, many of those appointed believe they are entitled to use their position on the Bench as a political tool to advance the liberal cause which includes extending rights to homosexuals. The judges’ decisions are often based on their own personal philosophies and ideology, rather than on any established legal principles rooted in legal precedent. Examples of this behaviour includes “reading-in” protection for sexual orientation as a right in the Charter (Nesbit and Egan 1999), even though this had been expressly rejected by the Parliamentary Committee reviewing the Charter in 1980. In the M and H decision the Supreme Court of Canada ordered that family benefits be awarded to same-sex partners, the same as those given to legally married, opposite-sex couples.

Same-sex Marriage Legal Challenges

Nowhere has this judicial activism and preference for homosexual rights been more apparent than in the same-sex marriage legal challenges.

These cases all began inCanada’s most liberal courts – BC,OntarioandQuebecin 2001-2002. These legal challenges were generously funded by the federal Court Challenges Program through the federal Heritage Department and its then Minister, Sheila Copps.

Courts typically take at least six months to hand down their decisions, but in these marriage cases, both the BC and Ontario Courts of Appeal managed to bring down their judgments in less than six weeks. Their haste was due to the fact that the House of Commons Justice Committee was also examining the issue at the same time. The House of Commons Committee, however, was hampered by the fact that it had to travel to 12 cities, hear 500 witnesses and deal with over 250,000 pieces of correspondence before it could reach its conclusions. The liberal judges, on the other hand, faced no such hindrances and were free to do their own thing and make their own rules. The courts were anxious to give their stamp of approval to same-sex marriage to avoid the possibility that the House of Commons Committee might reach a different conclusion. In their rush, the judges had no time for analysis, reasoning or reflection on how their decision in support of same-sex marriages would impact on such matters as taxation, inheritance, children, property rights, religion, traditional marriage, divorce, genealogical relationships, medical birth technologies – on all of society as a whole. Rather, the Courts believed it was better to sweep aside the understood definition of marriage that has existed across cultures, religion and time, and hand down their decision without delay without focusing on any consequences to society. In this regard, it is significant that court judgments on same-sex marriage included no reference whatever to any of the evidence introduced by the parties and intervenors to the courts in the cases. Rather, it appears that the Courts reached their decisions in support of same-sex marriage on their own personal ideological and philosophical views – certainly not on reasoned legal principles, arguments or legal


(b) Chief Justice Roy McMurtry of the Ontario Court of Appeal

It should be pointed out here that the major culprit in giving the judicial stamp of approval to same-sex marriage was Chief Justice Roy McMurtry of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Prior to his appointment to the Bench, he had served at one time as Attorney General of Ontario under the Conservative Premier, William Davis. Mr. McMurtry’s actions in the same-sex marriage court challenges were appalling: he showed himself as nothing more than .a politician hiding behind his judicial gown in making this decision. He accomplished this by:

  1. Insisting the same-sex marriages of the litigants be performed the same day that his decision was handed down, i.e., to take effect immediately. By doing so, Mr. McMurtry deliberately prevented any judicial appeal of his decision and curtailed any meaningful parliamentary debate since same-sex marriage had, by his decision, become a legal reality. These actions enormously strengthened the political hand of those supporting same-sex marriage.
  2. Ordering the homosexual challenges’ court costs to be paid by the Crown. This meant that the lawyers for the homosexual litigants were handed hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars to cover all legal costs in the challenge.Torontolawyer, Martha McCarthy, who acted for several of the homosexual challengers, received $645,000 in counsel fees from the federal government and R. Douglas Elliot, anotherTorontolawyer, who argued on behalf of theTorontohomosexual church, The Metropolitan Community Church, received $409,162 from the federal government. In short, the homosexual activists never paid out any of their own money for the legal challenge, which successfully resulted in the re-structuring of society by redefining marriage. On the other hand, pro-family organizations such as REAL Women of Canada and other pro-family groups, which intervened in all the same-sex marriage cases, had to pay out thousands of dollars from their own pockets to cover their own legal expenses. This created grave financial hardship for them. It was necessary for pro-family groups to become involved in the court cases, however, since there was no other way for the pro-family voice to be heard in the courts, since the federal Attorney General was supporting the homosexual activists in the legal challenges.
  3. Immediately following the decision in June 2003, Chief Justice McMurtry, together with the other judges involved in the case, flaunted judicial convention by attending a reception sponsored by the Ontario Law Society, in which representatives of the homosexual advocacy groups and the homosexual litigants were feted for their legal challenge of marriage. Chief Justice McMurtry was pictured on the homosexual website, with his arms around the former litigants, warmly welcoming them as friends and colleagues.

A homosexual activist, George Hislop, was a defendant in a 1978 bath house raid in Toronto at the time when Mr. McMurtry was serving as Ontario Attorney General. Mr. Hislop had recently brought a legal challenge demanding spousal benefits from a deceased partner under the Canada Pension Plan. Mr. McMurtry was pictured engaged in close sympathetic conversation with Mr. Hislop at the reception described in 3.

  1. above on the homosexual website. When Mr. Hislop died in October, Mr. McMurtry was in attendance at a party attended by Mr. Hislop’s friends and family to “celebrate” Mr. Hislop’s life.

In view of the above, why would anyone believe that our judges, and, in particular, Chief Justice Roy McMurtry, were fair and impartial on the marriage issue?

All the forgoing now brings us to the discussion of what is the next battleground for homosexual activists, following the passing of the same-sex marriage case. It will impact on the following issues.
Religious Practices and Use of Religious Owned Properties
(a) Religious Practices
Although Bill C-38 (same-sex marriage) explicitly provides that religious authorities will not be affected by the legislation, this is not the case. The federal government does not have jurisdiction under our constitution, over civil rights which includes freedom of religion. The latter is entirely a matter of provincial jurisdiction under S. 92 of the 1867Constitution Act. The federal government does have jurisdiction over the definition of marriage, (S. 91 of the Constitution Act) i.e., who may enter into a legal marriage, but the provinces have jurisdiction over the procedures or process of marriage. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada on December 9, 2004 when it handed down its decision on the same-sex marriage reference case. Thus the provision in the same-sex marriage legislation to protect religious practices is simply without any meaning or significance.

It is up to the provinces to ensure that freedom of religion, which includes the right of churches to determine whom they marry, to be protected. To date, only theprovinceofAlbertahas expressed an interest in passing such legislation. On the other hand, however, the Supreme Court of Canada did indicate, in its December 2004 reference on same-sex marriage that leaders would be protected against the requirement to perform same-sex marriage by the S2 (religious freedom) of the Charter of Rights. We must wait and see.

(b) Religiously Owned Properties

Freedom of religion must also include the freedom of religious organizations to determine the use of their property, i.e., church hall, summer camps, etc. Currently, there are two cases dealing with the issue of church-owned property before provincial Human Rights Tribunals. The first deals with the Knights of Columbus hall in Port Coquitlam, BC, where the Knights refused a lesbian couple the use of their hall to celebrate their “wedding” reception. The decision by the BC Tribunal on this case has not been handed down. Whatever the Tribunal’s decision, we can be assured that the

case is destined for a long journey through the court system.

The second case arose in theprovinceofManitoba, where a Mennonite-owned summer camp was charged with discrimination by a homosexual male choir because the camp refused to rent the camp premises to them. This case is to be argued before the Manitoba Human Rights Tribunal in the early spring, 2006.

In this regard, it may be reassuring to know that pro-family lawyers have devised ways to provide legal protection and defenses to protect religious properties. I presume that the Archdiocese of Toronto has had consultations with its lawyers on this crucial matter. One example is that a written policy must be prepared by individual churches (or the archdiocese itself) to restrict use of facilities, such as parish halls, to church programs and for church members only. Unfortunately, if a church hall is opened up for rental to the general public, and the church refuses to rent out the facilities to homosexual / lesbian groups, this would be interpreted as discrimination against them. Therefore, it is essential that there be a written policy restricting the use of the hall and that this policy be strictly adhered to.

(c) Marriage Commissioners

Freedom of religion cases have arisen inNewfoundland,ManitobaandSaskatchewanin regard to the right of Civil Marriage Commissioners to refuse to marry same-sex couples as a matter of conscience or religious belief. The Commissioners in some of these provinces have had their licenses removed by provincial authorities for their refusal to perform same-sex marriages The BC government, fortunately, has now changed its policy in this regard and now allows marriage commissioners to refuse to marry same-sex couples if it is contrary to their conscience or religious beliefs to do so. The Christian Legal Fellowship has provided lawyers in each of these cases, to assist the Commissioners with the complaints made to their respective provincial Human Rights Tribunals. None of these cases has yet been argued before the Tribunals.

Even though the Charter of Rights specifically provides as a right, freedom of religion, unfortunately, in every case where religious rights have competed with homosexual rights. Religious rights have been trumped every time. The parade of cases in this regard is numerous. Examples of such cases are:

Brillinger vs. Brockie

[2002] 222 D.L.R. (4th) 174.
Mr. Brockie is a Christian printer in Toronto who, because of his religious beliefs, refused to print letterhead and business cards for a homosexual organization. The court concluded Mr. Brockie had discriminated against the plaintiff organization. He was ordered by the Court to perform the services requested and also to pay a $5,000. fine. The court did say, however, that Mr. Brockie should not be ordered to act when it is in direct conflict with the elements of his religious beliefs or creed (whatever that means). In short, the court held that Mr. Brockie was free to express his beliefs in his home or Christian community, but that he could not take them into the public marketplace, except in limited (yet

  1. undefined) circumstances.
  2. Trinity Western University vs BC College of Teachers (BCCT) [2001] 1 S.C.R. 722
    The BCCT refused to accredit a teacher education program at Trinity Western, an accredited Christian liberal arts university in Ladner, BC. Accreditation allows graduates from the teacher education program at TWU to be automatically licensed to teach in BC’s public schools. The BCCT refused the application in 1997 because the TWU required each student to refrain from biblically condemned acts, such as sexual activity outside marriage and homosexual activity while attending the university. The BCCT was of the view that this policy was discriminatory against homosexuals.The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no evidence that TWU’s policies foster discrimination and that the university’s freedom of religion should be respected. However, it also held that the right to believe is broader than the right to act on one’s religious beliefs, i.e., that one may not publicly act or speak about them (as in a classroom). This decision reinforces the notion that religious beliefs are a private matter and it is not permissible to act on them in the public marketplace.
  3. Chris Kempling vs B.C. College of Teachers [2004] B.C.S.C. 133
    Chris Kempling is a public school teacher and counselor who wrote letters in his local paper (Quesnel,BC) opposed to homosexuality based on his religious views. There was no evidence that his letter had any direct negative impact on the school environment.

Mr. Kempling was suspended for one month, without pay, for behaviour unbecoming a teacher that would “poison the school environment.” This decision was upheld by the BC Court of Appeal . Mr. Kempling has now applied for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

  1. Hugh Owens and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission
    This case is now before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. Mr. Owens is a Christian who placed ads in a local newspaper during gay pride week giving references to the opposition of homosexuality from the Bible. The ad also included stick figures of two men holding hands with a diagonal line through the depiction. Homosexuals claimed that this depiction was hateful. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench agreed with this conclusion. Whatever the decision of the Court of Appeal, inevitably, this case will be argued in the Supreme Court of Canada, where, hopefully, the word “hate” will be defined so that freedom of opinion and expression on homosexual issues will not be detrimentally affected. The outcome of the case will also determine what is permissible in regard to opinions on homosexuality that are published in Letters to the Editor.


The homosexual lobby group EGALE held a retreat in March, 2005 to determine the next issues it would push once the same-sex marriage issue was settled. One of the

issues selected was to seek changes in the school environment on the homosexual issue. The homosexual activists believe that by targeting the next generation they will be able to change the cultural acceptance of homosexuality. Despite the media’s biased coverage and apparent cultural changes in support of homosexuality that have transpired, not all the adult generation, according to polls, seem to accept these challenges.

(a) Public Schools
In regard to introducing homosexuality in the public schools, homosexual activists are following the same pattern used in the same-sex marriage issue. They argue that pro-homosexual programs must be introduced into the schools because significant numbers of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered (referred to as GLBT) students are frequent victims of verbal harassment and acts of violence from which they must be protected. The activists also claim that homosexual youths are more likely to commit suicide than their straight peers and claim this is the result of harassment and discrimination against them. Because of these alleged problems, homosexual activists argue that “sexual orientation” should be singled out for specific protection under school disciplinary codes.

There is little evidence, however, of harassment against homosexual students, according to the homosexuals’ own surveys (see survey of gay teens by the US Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) 2001, updated in 2003 ( Nor is there any evidence of a link between homosexuality and youth suicide. According to statistics published by Health Canada, in Statistics Canada (Suicide in Canada, (1994), the suicide rate among youths in the Canadian province of Quebec, which was the first province to include protection for sexual orientation in its human rights legislation (1977) and which is the most liberal province in Canada in regard to both legislation and public attitudes toward homosexuality, is one with the highest youth suicides in the world. Yet, theprovinceofAlberta, which is one of the most supportive of the traditional family inCanada, has one of the lowest adolescent suicide rates inCanada.

(i) All Harassment is Wrong

All forms of harassment are wrong, and all forms of harassment–without distinction–should be banned. However, singling out “sexual orientation,” and including it with traditional categories, like race and sex, serve not as a “safety” function, but as a political one. When harassment, based on sexual orientation, is explicitly banned, school staff and students are inevitably trained to believe that the reason that such harassment is wrong is not because all harassment is wrong or because all people should be treated with respect, but because there is nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian. Such an assertion is not only offensive to the moral standards of most Canadians and to the historical teachings of most major religions, it flies in the face of hard scientific data showing the high rates of promiscuity, physical disease, mental illness, substance abuse, child sexual abuse, and domestic violence that often accompany homosexual behavior.

(ii) Hiding the Homosexual Curriculum from Parents

The key to successfully promoting the homosexual agenda in schools is to prevent

parents from finding out what is being taught to their children.

For example, the Toronto District School Board has decided that it will not let parents know what or when their children will be taught about gays or lesbians. In short, the board has decided that the parents should have no say over their children’s education on the homosexual issue.

The pro-active homosexual position by the Toronto District School Board does not appear to be an exception. For example, the Thames Valley School Board inLondon,Ontario, voted to implement a Sexual Diversity Action Plan in April, 2005, giving special recognition to homosexual activities, and the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board is currently developing an “Equity Policy” on sexual orientation.

There is no question that other school boards acrossCanadaare also jumping on the pro-homosexual bandwagon – using the Same-sex Marriage Bill C-38, passed in July, as their reason for doing so.

Sympathetic indoctrination is carried out in the schools by way of:

  • establishing gay student clubs in the schools;
  • publishing a pro-homosexual school newspaper,
  • teaching about homosexual acts in health classes, the same as is now done with heterosexual acts;
  • providing homosexual literature, including the promotion of same-sex marriage in the school libraries,
  • permitting same-sex couples to attend high school proms.

Heterosexuality in the schools is no longer to be assumed, and the words “husband” and “wife,” “father” and “mother” are no longer permitted. Since all marriages are to be treated equally, any preference to normal male/female marriage would be interpreted as unconstitutional, discriminatory and a “violation of human rights.” This will render those who support traditional marriage as the legal equivalent of racists. Of course, such school “equity” policies – which aren’t “equity” at all – is a powerful way of silencing traditionalists – whose jobs are on the line – altogether.

In addition, school officials are required to educate themselves and all teachers on the harmful effects of “homophobia” and acquire skills to address it. The focus of the programs is for teachers and administrators to supposedly create a “safe environment” for everyone, but especially young people who are lesbian, gay or transgendered and those who are questioning their sexual identity or perceive themselves as homosexuals, or who have homosexual family members.

(iii) Judicial Support for Teaching Homosexuality in the School

Again, the political decision by the school board is being ably supported by the courts. An example of this is the Supreme Court of Canada in the Surrey BC School Board case that was commenced by a homosexual kindergarten teacher, James Chamberlain, bringing a legal action against the School Board for refusing the use of three pro-homosexual books in kindergarten and Grade 1. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision handed down in December 2002, read the words “tolerance” and “diversity” into the BC Schools Act, even though these words were not mentioned in the Act at all.

The court held that “tolerance” (meaning support for homosexual education) is always age appropriate. The court further held that although the board must consider the religious views of parents, books cannot be banned on religious grounds.

Since this was a decision by the highest court in the country, the Supreme Court of Canada, it applies to all of Canada, with the result that all School Acts must be interpreted to include “tolerance” toward homosexuality.

(iv) Human Rights Tribunal

There is also another case now pending before the BC Human Rights Tribunal in which a homosexual couple argued that the BC school curriculum did not adequately address sexual orientation. They claimed that this failure was systemic discrimination through omission and suppression. The claimants admitted, however, that the curriculum was not in any way anti-homosexual. An especially disturbing aspect of this complaint was that it included the demand that the homosexual issue be made a mandatory subject for all students. That is, homosexual activists demanded that the opting-out provisions of the current curriculum, which provides that teachers are obliged to give advance notice to parents of any “sensitive” issues raised in the classroom, must be removed when dealing with the homosexual issue. This activist complaint was subsequently amended in order that it be applied to the curricula of private schools as well, since BC provides some funding for private Christian schools. The BC Human Rights Tribunal recently adjourned a hearing, pending its decision regarding whether the complaint be extended to private school curricula.

b) Catholic Schools in Ontario

Homosexual activists face more difficulty in their attempt to force their agenda in the Catholic schools because of the protection given such schools under section 93 of the 1867 Constitution Act . This provision provides that education rights existing at the time of Confederation are constitutionally protected. This same protection was included in section 29 of the 1982 Charter of Rights which also provides protection to separate (Catholic) schools from government intervention.

In order to circumvent this constitutional protection for Catholic schools, however, homosexual lawyers argue that any institution, religious or secular, even schools that have constitutional protection, must be required to adhere to Charter Rights and human rights legislation protecting sexual orientation if they receive public funding. This argument was first made by homosexual lawyers in the infamous Marc Hall case.

Marc Hall v. Dufferin Catholic School Board (2002) 59 O.R.(3d) 423

Marc Hall, was a student in an Oshawa, Ontario Catholic high school. Assisted by a group of homosexual activist lawyers, he challenged the school board’s decision to deny him the right to bring his same-sex partner to the school prom. The court granted Mr. Hall an injunction against the school board, stating that Marc Hall had a “right” to attend the prom with his same-sex partner, even though the prom was organized by the Catholic school and took place on Catholic school property. The conclusion was based on the judge’s finding that Mr. Hall would experience irreparable harm by the denial to attend the prom with his partner.

Mr. Hall received significant support for his legal challenge, not just from the gay rights lobby group EGALE, but also from former federal Minister of Industry, Allan Rock; Buzz Hargrove, President of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW); Toronto City Councilor Kyle Rae (openly homosexual); Ontario Liberal leader, Dalton McGuinty; Liberal MPP, George Smitherman, also openly homosexual (now Ontario Minister of Health). Surprisingly, the so-called Ontario Catholic teachers union (OECTA) weighed into the case, claiming that “although it did not support either side,” it would address fundamental questions raised by the case. However, it argued that there was a conflict between individual Charter rights to equality and Constitutional denominational rights of Catholic School Boards. By the way, the school board denied such a conflict. The union also argued that there is no “uniformity of opinion within the Catholic Church in terms of the kind of activity prohibited within Church teachings …”

Mr. Justice McKinnon, in his decision handed down in May 2002, concluded that publicly funded school boards are subject to the Charter of Rights and its requirement to protect on the grounds of sexual orientation. The timing of this ruling was too close to the prom date to afford the School Board the opportunity to appeal the injunction.

It is important to note that interim injunctions are granted on different legal grounds than other court proceedings. In this case, the judge did not consider the substantive issue of whether denominational schools had the right under S.93 of the Constitution to prohibit gay partners to a school prom. This significant point was to have been argued at a later date. Regrettably, at the end of June, 2005, Marc Hall, the main protagonist in this case was granted leave by the court to discontinue his legal action in the courts. The discontinuing of this case thus ended an opportunity to defend the denominational rights of Catholic Schools in court.

It is significant that homosexual activists had also hoped that the Marc Hall case would have broader implications than just relating to schools. They believed that the Marc Hall decision could affect all institutions and organizations and agencies that receive government funding by requiring them to apply government non-discrimination policies. This outcome, however, awaits another day, as well as the serious questions as to whether allowing same-sex couples to attend a Catholic prom prejudicially affects rights with respect to denominational schools under S.93 of the 1987 Constitution Act.

It is beyond dispute that children thrive best in an opposite-sex family environment where they can learn gender identity and sex-role expectations from their biological parents. These children also do far better academically, financially, emotionally, psychologically and behaviourally.
Same-sex unions, which have now been recognized as marriages, lead to children being caught up in these arrangements by way of adoption or foster care. This is not in their best interest.

The purpose of adoption, foster care, and assimilated families is to provide the best possible upbringing for children who, for whatever reason, cannot live with both their biological parents. That is, children are neither status symbols for couples nor to be used to further a political agenda. Rather, they are human beings who are owed responsible, loving care and dignity in their own right. Therefore, their best interests should be given priority.

Because of the political pressure from same-sex couples, some jurisdictions have ceased to base adoption and foster care on the best interests of children. Instead, the focus has shifted to a supposed “right” of adults, that is, homosexuals/lesbians, to have access to children for adoption and foster care, even though adoption and foster care are not “rights” for adults, but privileges.